Physics Letters A 368 (2007) 222–226

www.elsevier.com/locate/pla

Extension of a chaos control method to unstable trajectories on infinite- or

finite-time intervals: Experimental verification
Kazuyuki Yagasaki
Department of Mechanical and Systems Engineering, Gifu University, Gifu 501-1193, Japan
Received 10 October 2006; received in revised form 3 January 2007; accepted 16 March 2007
Available online 5 April 2007
Communicated by C.R. Doering

Abstract
In experiments for single and coupled pendula, we demonstrate the effectiveness of a new control method based on dynamical systems theory
for stabilizing unstable aperiodic trajectories defined on infinite- or finite-time intervals. The basic idea of the method is similar to that of the OGY
method, which is a well-known, chaos control method. Extended concepts of the stable and unstable manifolds of hyperbolic trajectories are used
here.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PACS: 02.30.Yy; 05.45.-a; 05.45.Gg; 45.80.+r

Keywords: Control; Hyperbolic trajectory; Experiment; Stable and unstable manifolds; Infinite- and finite-time intervals

1. Introduction paid on asymptotic behavior of solutions as time tends to in-

Dynamical systems theory has achieved great successes in
our understanding of nonlinear phenomena such as chaos and
bifurcations in diverse disciplines [1–4]. Some results of the
theory have been utilized in establishing new control method-
ologies of nonlinear systems [5–7]. In particular, Ott et al. [8]
showed that one can stabilize unstable hyperbolic periodic or-
bits embedded in chaotic attractors using geometric structures
having stable and unstable manifolds near the periodic orbits.
The control technique is now called the OGY method in their
honor, and after their work a huge literature on related sub-
jects has appeared and a vast research area of chaos control has
been formed. Single and coupled pendula are typical examples
exhibiting chaotic motions and problems of controlling them
experimentally have attracted a special attention [9–13].
On the other hand, in the context of differential equations,
dynamical systems theory has traditionally treated autonomous
or time-periodic vector fields, and special attention has been
E-mail address: yagasaki@gifu-u.ac.jp.
0375-9601/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2007.03.084
finity. Some ideas used there have been generalized to vec-
tor fields having aperiodic time-dependence or defined only
on finite-time intervals. Among others, the concepts of stable
and unstable manifolds have been extended [14–16], so that
some techniques have been developed to succeed in explaining
chaotic dynamics [17–19], and Lagrangian transport and mix-
ing [15,20–22] in such systems.
In this Letter, in experiments for single and coupled pendula,
we demonstrate the effectiveness of the new control method
based on dynamical systems theory for stabilizing aperiodic
trajectories on infinite- or finite-time intervals. The basic idea
of the method is similar to that of the OGY method, which
is a well-known, chaos control method for stabilizing periodic
trajectories. Extended concepts of the stable and unstable man-
ifolds of general hyperbolic trajectories, which need not to be
periodic, are used here. In particular, the homoclinic orbit of the
pendulum, which starts from the inverted position and reaches
there using infinite time, is stabilized and realized experimen-
tally by small control force although it is very unstable as well
known. A problem of stabilizing aperiodic trajectories on finite-
time intervals often arises in real world applications such as
 K. Yagasaki / Physics Letters A 368 (2007) 222–226
robotic manipulators and spacecrafts. Thus, our result is im-
portant in engineering applications as well as in physical ones.
See [23] for the necessary technical details.
2. Hyperbolic trajectories
We first outline necessary information on hyperbolic trajec-
tories on infinite- and finite-time intervals [23]. Consider gen-
eral, non-autonomous vector fields of the form
ẋ = f (x, t; μ), x ∈ Rn , t ∈ R, μ ∈ Rm ,
where f is sufficiently smooth and μ is a parameter vector with
m, n > 0 some integers.
2.1. Infinite-time interval case
We begin with the infinite-time interval (−∞, ∞). A trajec-
tory x = γ (t) of (2.1) on (−∞, ∞) is said to be hyperbolic if
the associated linearized system
 
ξ̇ = Dx f γ (t), t ξ, (2.2)
has stable and unstable subspaces E s,u (τ ) such that trajectories
of (2.2) starting on E s (τ ) (respectively on E u (τ )) at t = τ ap-
proach zero as t → +∞ (respectively t → −∞). We extend the
phase space of (2.1) to E = {(x, t) ∈ Rn × R} and define a time
slice as Στ = {(x, t) ∈ E | t = τ }. We represent the hyperbolic
trajectory γ (t) as Γ = {(γ (t), t) | t ∈ R} in E . The hyperbolic
trajectory Γ has stable and unstable manifolds, W s (Γ ) and
W u (Γ ), such that trajectories of (2.1) starting on W s (Γ ) (re-
spectively on W u (Γ )) approach Γ as t → +∞ (respectively
t → −∞). See Fig. 1. We denote W s,u (Γ, τ ) = W s,u (Γ ) ∩ Στ ,
which we call the stable and unstable slices of Γ at t = τ . The
stable and unstable slices, W s,u (Γ, τ ), are well approximated
by the stable and unstable subspaces, E s,u (τ ), which can be
easily computed in (2.2).
2.2. Finite-time interval case
We turn to the case of a finite-time interval [t− , t+ ], where
t− < 0 < t+ . Let φ(x0 , t; t0 ) be the flow generated by (2.1),
i.e., x(t) = φ(x0 , t; t0 ) is a solution of (2.1) satisfying an ini-
tial condition x(t0 ) = x0 . We say that a trajectory γ̄ (t) on the
Fig. 1. Stable and unstable manifolds of a hyperbolic trajectory.
223
finite-time interval [t− , t+ ] in (2.1) is finite-time hyperbolic if
Dx φ(γ̄ (t− ), t+ ; t− ) has no eigenvalue of a unit modulus. We
define the Poincaré-type map for the finite-time hyperbolic tra-
jectory γ̄ (t) as
 
ψ(x) = φ x + γ̄ (t− ), t+ ; t− − γ̄ (t+ ). (2.3)
If x(t) is a trajectory of (2.1), then the Poincaré-type map ψ(x)
takes x(t− ) − γ̄ (t− ) to x(t+ ) − γ̄ (t+ ). Obviously, the origin
x = 0 is a hyperbolic fixed point of ψ , so that by a standard
(2.1) result of dynamical systems theory [1,2] it has stable and un-
stable manifolds, W s (0) and W u (0), on which orbits approach
(respectively depart from) the origin when ψ is iterated. We ex-
tend the phase space Ē = {(x, t) ∈ Rn × [t− , t+ ]} and denote
Γ¯ = {(γ̄ (t), t) | t ∈ [t− , t+ ]}. We define the finite-time stable
and unstable manifolds of Γ¯ as
 
W̄ s (Γ¯ ) = φ(x, t; t+ ), t ∈ Ē

| x − γ̄ (t+ ) ∈ W s (0), t ∈ [t− , t+ ] ,
 
W̄ u (Γ¯ ) = φ(x, t; t− ), t ∈ Ē

| x − γ̄ (t− ) ∈ W u (0), t ∈ [t− , t+ ] . (2.4)
For τ ∈ [t− , t+ ] we also denote W̄ s,u (Γ¯ , τ ) = W̄ s,u (Γ¯ ) ∩ Στ ,
which we call the finite-time stable and unstable slices of Γ¯ at
t = τ . Note that in its neighborhood, trajectories on the finite-
time stable (respectively unstable) manifold approach (respec-
tively depart from) the finite-time hyperbolic trajectory quickly
in the finite-time interval [t− , t+ ] if the stability (instability) is
strong. We can also prove that at time far from t± the finite-
time stable and unstable slices are O(e−c|t± | )-close to ones de-
fined by assuming the vector field outside [t− , t+ ] [23]. Again,
the finite-time stable and unstable slices, W̄ s,u (Γ¯ , τ ), are ap-
proximately computed from the linearized system (2.2) with
γ (t) = γ̄ (t).
3. Control strategy
Let γ (t) be an unstable hyperbolic trajectory of (2.1) on the
infinite-time interval (−∞, ∞). Using an idea similar to the
OGY method [8], we apply a small perturbation in the direction
of its unstable manifold to stabilize the hyperbolic trajectory
γ (t). Note that γ (t) is not assumed to be periodic as in usual
chaos control methods like the OGY method. We set the di-
mension m of the parameter vector such that it is the same as
the dimension nu of the unstable slice W u (Γ, τ ). Let the stable
and unstable subspaces E s,u (τ ) for the linearized system (2.2)
be spanned by vectors ejs,u (τ ) ∈ Rn , j = 1, . . . , ns,u . Introduce
a sequence of times, {tk | k ∈ Z}, with tk < tk+1 for any k.
We consider a trajectory x(t) deviating by a small amount
xk ∈ Rn from the hyperbolic trajectory γ (t) at t = tk and vary
the parameter value of μ ∈ Rm by μk ∈ Rm to shift it onto
the stable slice W s (Γ, tk+1 ) at t = tk+1 . Denote φk (x, μ) =
φ(x, tk+1 ; tk ; μ), where the dependence of φ on the parameter
μ is written explicitly. We linearize the flow φ to obtain
 
φk γ (tk ) + xk , μ + μk − γ (tk+1 )
   
≈ Dx φk γ (tk ), μ xk + Dμ φk γ (tk ), μ μk . (3.1)
224 K. Yagasaki / Physics Letters A 368 (2007) 222–226
Fig. 2. Control scheme.
Let Mu be an nu × n matrix in which the diagonal el-
ements are one and the others are zero, and let Λ(t) =
(e1u (t), . . . , enuu (t), e1s (t), . . . , ens s (t)). Suppose that the nu × nu
matrix Mu Λ−1 (tk+1 )Dμ φk (γ (tk ), μ) is nonsingular. If we
choose
  −1
μk = − Mu Λ−1 (tk+1 )Dμ φk γ (tk ), μ
 
× Mu Λ−1 (tk+1 )Dx φk γ (tk ), μ xk ,
then the trajectory shifts on the stable slice W s (Γ, tk+1 ) at t =
tk+1 as in Fig. 2 and converges to the hyperbolic trajectory γ (t)
as t → +∞ if xk and μ are sufficiently small. See [23] for
more details.
For the finite-time interval case we can also use the same
approach to stabilize unstable finite-time hyperbolic trajecto-
ries, i.e., to control trajectories so that they can continue to stay
in small neighborhoods of the finite-time hyperbolic trajecto-
ries. Certainly, the controlled trajectories do not converge to the
finite-time hyperbolic trajectories within finite time in general
but we can expect that they remain near the finite-time hyper-
bolic trajectories.
4. Experiments
4.1. Experimental setup
The experimental apparatus is shown in Fig. 3. Each of the
pendula consisting of a brass rod 120 mm long with 10 mm
circular cross-section, and a brass disk with 36 mm diameter
and 16 mm thick having a hole with 5 mm diameter. They were
attached to the shafts of servo-motors through the holes. The
natural angular frequencies of the pendula about the hanging-
down position were estimated as 10.0 rad/s. The velocities
of the pendula, θ̇j , j = 1, 2, were measured from the voltage
outputs of generators, and sampled by a personal computer
through electric circuits and an A/D converter at every 1 ms.
The displacements θj , j = 1, 2, were measured by optical en-
coders with 2π/1000 rad resolution. Each of the servo-motors
were powered by voltage Vj (t), j = 1, 2, which correspond
to the control inputs. For the coupled pendula case, voltage
κa (θ̇2 − θ̇1 ) or κa (θ̇1 − θ̇2 ) was also supplied to the servo-
motors, where κa is a constant. These input signals were com-
puted on the personal computer and sent to the servo-motors
through a D/A converter. Both the A/D and D/A converters
have 12 BIT resolution. A similar experimental system was
used in [12].
(3.2)
Fig. 3. Block diagram of the experimental apparatus.
4.2. Single pendulum
The servo-motors used in the experiments had a damping
characteristic of a dry friction type. So the dimensionless equa-
tion of motion for the single pendulum is approximately given
by
θ̇ = v, v̇ = − sin θ − δ1 v − δ0 sgn v + u(t), (4.1)
where δ1 and δ0 are constants, sgn represents the signum func-
tion, and u(t) is a control input determined below. The damping
constants were estimated as δ1 = 0.065 and δ0 = 0.13 so that
experimental time series of the velocity fit solutions of (4.1)
well.
When δ0 = δ1 = 0 and u(t) ≡ 0, the system (4.1) has
a homoclinic orbit (θ h (t), v h (t)) = (2 arcsin(tanh t), 2 sech t),
which converges to a hyperbolic equilibrium (π, 0) as t →
±∞. For δ0 , δ1 > 0, we choose u(t) = 2δ1 sech t + δ0 + μ with
μ ∈ R is a parameter, so that the homoclinic trajectory is also a
solution of (4.1) when μ = 0. Obviously, Eq. (4.1) is not peri-
odic in time. The homoclinic trajectory, which is hyperbolic and
unstable as easily shown in [23], is the target which we apply
our control method to stabilize. Note that Eq. (4.1) is smooth
near the homoclinic trajectory for any finite-time interval al-
though it is not in the whole phase space.
We set t = tk+1 − tk = 1 and applied our control method
to the homoclinic trajectory. The stable slice W s (Γ, τ ) (respec-
tively the unstable slice W u (Γ, τ )) was approximately com-
puted by numerically integrating backward (respectively for-
ward) the linearized system for (4.1),
 
ξ̇1 = ξ2 , ξ̇2 = − cos θ h (t) ξ1 − δ1 ξ2 , (4.2)
under a small initial condition parallel to e0s (respectively e0u ) at
t = T (respectively t = −T ) in time for T > 0 large (T = 10
was taken in the experimental result since θ h (10) − π ≈
 K. Yagasaki / Physics Letters A 368 (2007) 222–226 225

Fig. 4. Control of the homoclinic trajectory for the single pendulum: (a) The Fig. 5. Control of the finite-time hyperbolic trajectory for the single pendulum:
angular displacement θ ; (b) the parameter variation μ. In panel (a) the dashed (a) the angular displacement θ ; (b) the parameter variation μ. In panel (a) the
curve represents the angular displacement when no feedback control force was dashed curve represents the angular displacement when no feedback control
applied, i.e., μ ≡ 0. force was applied, i.e., μ ≡ 0.

−1.816 × 10−4 and v h (10) ≈ 1.816 × 10−4 ), where e0s and We set θ∗ = −π , T = 10 and T = 1, and applied the
e0u are vectors spanning the stable and unstable subspaces, control method to the finite-time hyperbolic trajectory. Fig. 5
E s (+∞) and E u (−∞), respectively. The linearized maps shows an experimental result. We integrated the linearized sys-
Dx φk (x, μ) and Dμ φk (x, μ), k = −10, . . . , 9, were estimated tem for (4.1) numerically to obtain the Jacobian matrix of the
by numerically integrating (4.2) and Poincaré-type map, and approximated the finite-time stable and
  unstable slices, W̄ s,u (Γ¯ , τ ), by their tangent spaces. Taking the
ξ̇1 = ξ2 , ξ̇2 = − cos θ h (t) ξ1 − δ1 ξ2 + 1, (4.3) experimental accuracy into account, we can state that the con-
respectively, over the interval [tk , tk+1 ]. The deviation x = trol method succeeded in stabilizing the trajectory while a small
( θ, v) from the target trajectory (θ h (t), v h (t)) was mea- deviation exists near t = 0.
sured at each time t = tk , and Eq. (3.2) is used to compute the
control force μk = μk . 4.3. Coupled pendula
Fig. 4 shows an experimental result on the dimensionless
time interval [−10, 10]. We see that the hyperbolic trajectory The dimensionless equation of motion for the coupled pen-
was stabilized, while the pendulum motion was very different dula is approximately given by
from it and converged to the stable equilibrium state (θ, v) =
θ̇1 = v1 ,
(0, 0) when the feedback control force was not applied. The
parameter variation is more or less large, compared with numer- v̇1 = − sin θ1 − δ1 v1 − δ0 sgn v1 − α(v1 − v2 ) + u1 (t),
ical simulation results in [23]. This is considered to be mainly θ̇2 = v2 ,
due to modeling errors for the experimental system. Thus, the
v̇2 = − sin θ2 − δ1 v2 − δ0 sgn v2 − α(v2 − v1 ) + u2 (t), (4.5)
control method is very robust.
We next consider a finite-time interval [−T , T ] and choose where α is a constant, and u1 (t) = u10 (t) + μ, u2 (t) = u20 (t),
(θ, v) = (θ0 (t; θ∗ ), v0 (t)) as our target trajectory, where for are control inputs such that (θ1 , v1 , θ2 , v2 ) = (θ0 (t; −π), v0 (t),
some T > 0 and θ∗ ∈ [−π, π) θ0 (t; 0), v0 (t)) is a solution of (4.5) when μ = 0. We can easily
⎧ show that the trajectory is finite-time hyperbolic, with nu = 1
)4 −4 T (t+T )3 ]
⎪
⎪ − π[(t+T 16T + θ∗ and choose it as our target. Fig. 6 shows an experimental result
⎪
⎪ 1 T
3
⎪
⎪ for control of the finite-time hyperbolic trajectory when α =
⎨ for t ∈ [−T , −T2 );
⎪
1.2, T = 10 and T = 1. The finite-time stable and unstable
θ0 (t; θ∗ ) = Tπ1 t + θ∗ + π for t ∈ [−T2 , T2 ]; (4.4)
⎪
⎪ slices, W̄ s,u (Γ¯ , τ ), were approximately estimated as in the case
⎪
⎪ π[(t−T ) +4 T (t−T ) ] + θ + 2π
4 3
⎪
⎪ ∗ of the single pendulum. Again, the control method succeeded
⎪
⎩ 16T1 T 3
in stabilization of the target.
for t ∈ (T2 , T ],
and v0 (t) = θ̇0 (t; θ∗ ), which is independent of θ∗ , with T1 = 5. Concluding remarks
T − T and T2 = T − 2 T . Here u(t) = u0 (t) + μ is de-
termined such that the target trajectory, which represents one Our experimental results show that the new control method,
rotation of the pendulum from θ = θ∗ at t = −T to θ = θ∗ + 2π which is considered to be an extension of the OGY method,
at t = T , is a solution of (4.1) when μ = 0. succeeded in stabilizing unstable trajectories on an infinite-
226 K. Yagasaki / Physics Letters A 368 (2007) 222–226
Fig. 6. Control of the finite-time hyperbolic trajectory for the coupled pendula:
(a) and (b) the angular displacements θ1 and θ2 ; (c) the parameter variation μ.
In panels (a) and (b) the dashed curves represent the angular displacements θ1
and θ2 when no feedback control force was applied, i.e., μ ≡ 0.
and finite-time intervals for the single and coupled pendula al-
though considerable modeling errors and noise existed. Hence,
it is very robust, and consequently useful from the standpoint
of applications. Obviously, it is also applicable for general
non-autonomous systems exhibiting chaotic dynamics. Actu-
ally, in [23] a four-body problem for a spacecraft under the
influence of the Sun, Earth and Moon, in which the spacecraft
can exhibit chaotic motions, is considered, and unstable transfer
trajectories from the Earth to Moon are stabilized in numerical
simulations by using this control method. Thus, our results give
an example in which the new methodology, dynamical systems
theory, is useful and important in applications.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Hiroaki Iwahara for his assistance in ex-
periments.
References
[1] J. Guckenheimer, P. Holmes, Nonlinear Oscillations, Dynamical Systems,
and Bifurcations of Vector Fields, Springer, New York, 1983.
[2] S. Wiggins, Introduction to Applied Nonlinear Dynamical Systems and
Chaos, Springer, New York, 1990.
[3] E. Ott, Chaos in Dynamical Systems, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge,
1993.
[4] K.T. Alligood, T.D. Sauer, J.A. Yorke, Chaos: An Introduction to Dynam-
ical Systems, Springer, New York, 1996.
[5] G. Chen, X. Dong, From Chaos to Order: Methodologies, Perspectives
and Applications, World Scientific, Singapore, 1998.
[6] H.G. Shuster (Ed.), Handbook of Chaos Control, Wiley–VCH, New York,
1999.
[7] S. Sastry, Nonlinear Systems: Analysis, Stability, and Control, Springer,
New York, 1999.
[8] E. Ott, C. Grebogi, J.A. Yorke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 1196.
[9] G.L. Baker, Am. J. Phys. 63 (1995) 832.
[10] D.J. Christini, J.J. Collins, P.S. Linsay, Phys. Rev. E 54 (1996) 4824.
[11] W. van de Water, J. de Weger, Phys. Rev. E 62 (2000) 006398.
[12] K. Yagasaki, M. Kumagai, Phys. Rev. E 65 (2001) 026204.
[13] H.J.T. Smith, J.A. Blackburn, G.L. Baker, Int. J. Bifur. Chaos 13 (2003) 7.
[14] Y. Yi, J. Differential Equations 103 (1993) 278.
[15] G. Haller, A. Poje, Phys. D 119 (1998) 352.
[16] A.M. Mancho, D. Small, S. Wiggins, K. Ide, Phys. D 182 (2003) 188.
[17] D. Stoffer, J. Appl. Math. Phys. (ZAMP) 39 (1988) 518;
D. Stoffer, J. Appl. Math. Phys. (ZAMP) 39 (1988) 783.
[18] L.M. Lerman, L.P. Šilnikov, Chaos 2 (1992) 447.
[19] B. Sandstede, H.S. Balasuriya, C.K.R.T. Jones, P. Miller, Nonlinearity 13
(2000) 1357.
[20] N. Malhotra, S. Wiggins, J. Nonlinear Sci. 8 (1998) 401.
[21] G. Haller, Chaos 10 (2000) 99.
[22] G. Haller, Phys. Fluids A 13 (2001) 3365.
[23] K. Yagasaki, Invariant manifolds and control of hyperbolic trajectories on
infinite- or finite-time intervals, submitted for publication.